There's absolutely nothing in any of the writings of the early Church (say, pre-4th century, or so) about Mary. Nothing about her as anything other than the mother of the Lord, and showing her great respect and honor. But there's no prayers, nothing about prayers, no speaking of her as an intercessor, or an advocate, or anything else like that.

4. In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race.

To alleviate such suspicions, one must understand what the Church means (and doesnt mean) by the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Pope Pius IX, in his constitution Ineffabilis Deus (issued December 8, 1854), taught that Mary, "from the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin." The doctrine includes the assertion that Mary was perpetually free from all actual sin (willful disobedience of God, either venial or mortal).

Since when does sin have to willful.

Lev.4: 2] Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:

52
posted on 04/28/2008 4:50:54 AM PDT
by fortheDeclaration
("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)

We have seen the Roman Catholic 'Mary'(queen of heaven) in the Bible, but not in Gen.1 or 1Sam.6,

Jer.44:25] Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. [26] Therefore hear ye the word of the LORD, all Judah that dwell in the land of Egypt; Behold, I have sworn by my great name, saith the LORD, that my name shall no more be named in the mouth of any man of Judah in all the land of Egypt, saying, The Lord GOD liveth. [27] Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah that are in the land of Egypt shall be consumed by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them.

53
posted on 04/28/2008 4:56:15 AM PDT
by fortheDeclaration
("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)

1. There’s an illogical assertion that suggests that since Pelagius inferred an incorrect conclusion from the docrtine of the sinlessness of Mary, that the doctrine itself is false. In fact, Augustine’s refutation of Pelagius also presumes the sinlessness of Mary.

2. I don’t know Walter Burghardt, so his opinion doesn’t mean much to me; the modern world is unfortunately full of CINO heretics. I don’t presume he is one, only that I don’t consider him a reliable source of faithful Catholic scholarship. I can’t even tell if he agrees with your assertion. I do know that his quote of St. Leo’s is quite plain to exclude Mary from its scope. For although “Men,” in many contexts includes women, “the sons of Men” is a construction which intentionally excludes women.

3. & 4. These verses are both part of the same passage, which was addressed in the original article. Both are citing prophecies from the Old Testament time to assert that Jews aren’t innately superior to Gentiles. Mary’s sinlessness neither negates the original assertion of the prophet (that he could find no righteous Jews), or St. Paul’s current assertion (that Jews were every bit as corrupt as Gentiles).

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [2] The same was in the beginning with God. [3] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Mark.12: [14] And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?

Luke.20 [21] And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Jesus who is God manifest in the flesh says that he is the word and that he is the truth, so it is in scripture.

Whether one wishes to except the word of God as truth from cover to cover is their own battle, in believing that Jesus who is all powerful could put in scripture truth without error even thought fallible man actually jotted it upon paper.

Catholic Answers has some interesting ways of grabbing your attention. By placing the beginning paragraph or two of the lead article of their monthly magazine, This Rock, on the very cover of the work, they draw your attention into reading the rest of the article. True to form, the December, 1991 edition sported Pat Madrid's article, "Ark of the New Covenant" with the interesting lead in, "His face stiffened, and his eyes narrowed to slits. Until now the Calvary Chapel pastor had been calm as he `shared the gospel' with me, but when I mentioned my belief in Mary's Immaculate Conception, his attitude changed." Using a "real-life" backdrop for the presentation of some particular topic is another fine writing tool used by the folks at Catholic Answers. As you continue to read about this encounter, you discover that our author, Pat Madrid, is going to provide Biblical support for his belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He writes of his encounter with the Protestant pastor,

The greatest effort in typological interpretation by Mr. Madrid comes in his attempt to parallel the Ark of the Covenant and Mary. The first parallel he draws has to do with the fact that God took such great pains to make sure the Ark was properly constructed. He says,

God wanted the ark to be as perfect and unblemished as humanly possible so it would be worthy of the honor of bearing the written Word of God. How much more so would God want Mary, the ark of the new covenant, to be perfect and unblemished since she would carry within her womb the Word of God in flesh.

Does this kind of interpretation bear the weight of investigation? While we admit the force such things carry with those who already accept these doctrine, we point out that there is no way to test the interpretation. We can easily point out absurdities to which the parallel can be pushed--for example, must Mary have been stolen by God's enemies for a time, so that she could be brought back to the people of God with great rejoicing? Who was Mary's Uzzah (2 Samuel 6:3-8)? Madrid draws a further parallel between the three months the ark was with Obededom and the three months Mary was with Elizabeth. What, then, is the parallel with David's action of sacrificing a bull and a fattened calf when those who were carrying the ark had taken six steps (2 Samuel 6:13)? See, Mr. Madrid feels free to pick and choose what aspects of Mary's life he wishes to parallel in the ark, and which he does not--there are no rules in this kind of interpretation, and it can lead to just about any conclusion. Pat seems to recognize at least some of this, for he says,

Granted, none of these verses "proves" Mary's Immaculate Conception, but they all point to it. After all, the Bible nowhere says Mary committed any sin or languished under original sin. As far as explicit statements are concerned, the Bible is silent on most of the issue, yet all the biblical evidence supports the Catholic teaching.

We are left wondering at Mr. Madrid's definition of "biblical evidence," but we are glad to see that he recognizes that all that has come before does not "prove" the Immaculate Conception. One will believe that doctrine only if one believes that the Roman Catholic Church is infallible and has an authority that does not need Scriptural basis. It seems that, sadly, Mr. Madrid accepts Rome's claims.

There is one other item that needs to be addressed in this article. Madrid says,

The Mary/ark imagery appears again in Revelation 11:19 and 12:1- 17, where she is called the mother of all "those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus" (verse 17). The ark symbolism found in Luke 1 and Revelation 11 and 12 was not lost on the early Christians. They could see the parallels between the Old Testament's description of the ark and the New Testament's discussion of Mary's role.

We are forced to wonder again as to how Mr. Madrid is defining the phrase "early Christians." If we take "early" to mean "prior to the year 400," we find that he has no basis for his statements. It is plain for all to see that the entire concept of the Immaculate Conception is missing from the earliest patristic sources--indeed, Mary does not enter into the picture for quite some time, entering first because of the Christological controversies, and only later, under the impulse of asceticism and monasticism, as a central figure in her own right. But, for the first four centuries, the "Virgin Mother" for Christians was not Mary, but the Church. The woman in Revelation 12 was not Mary, but the Church as well (see Hippolytus, _On Christ and Antichrist_, 61, in ANF, V:217). Indeed, one will find controversies brewing over the concept of the Immaculate Conception a thousand years later, when the Dominicans and the Franciscans were at each other's throats over the issue. At the time, the "infallible authority" remained silent, following a middle course between the two sides. As late as the nineteenth century we find the Roman Catholic bishop Milner saying,

The Church does not decide the controversy concerning the Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and several other disputed points, because she sees nothing clear and certain concerning them either in the written or unwritten Word, and therefore leaves her children to form their own opinions concerning them (cited in Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, p. 182).

So even tradition fails our Roman Catholic apologist in attempting to find a basis for the Immaculate Conception. The simple fact is that this doctrine is a very late development, a part of Roman Catholic teaching, officially, for less than 150 years. It has no Biblical basis, nor does it have foundation in the early writings of the Church. It was a hotly debated topic for centuries, and no "infallible Pope" dared schism by exercising his infallibility to end the argument until the nineteenth century. It is one of many Marian doctrines that, as a whole, not only greatly detract from the true, Biblical presentation of Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, but which promote clearly false concepts in the minds of faithful Catholics everywhere. Given the results of our review, it seems clear that Pat Madrid's "examination" of the "biblical evidence" for the doctrine with the Calvary Chapel pastor took a very short period of time.

A woman (Mary), approaches the same pit, but as she began to fall into the pit her rescuer reaches out and stops her from falling in. She cries out, "Thank you for saving me" (Luke 1:47). Like this woman, Mary was no less "saved" than any other human being has been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a far better way.

Hmmm. Too bad someone didn't stop [save] her from committing the sin of lying to her son in this part of Luke 2:

"43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it ... And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.... 48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, 'Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, 'How is it that ye sought me? Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?'"

Mary knew that Joseph was not Jesus' father but she referred to him as his "father" anyway. Was this not a lie??? Was this the first time she did so or had she been doing so for quite some time which explains why she didn't understand his rebuke of her words.

So -- to claim that she never sinned is a prefabrication [sin] -- a prefabrication of the Marian sort -- but a prefabrication [a sin] nonetheless.

Oh but I am sure that the Marian casuists amongst you will casually explain this away since sin is not sin when Mary or Marianists commit it.

You watch and accident happen from the rear and I see it from the front we each speak to a policeman and give an account. There are some over lapping similarities but it appear to be to different accidents to the reader of the transcripts.

I just heard a nice sermon in the subject in a Presbyterian church yesterday. I could regurgitate parts of it for you but... nah, I will let you do your truth seeking yourself. There are exceptions. And there is implication that there could be more. So it is not ‘unscriptural’.

Oh please! It is not a lie to call someone filling the human role of father by that term. Adopted fathers are called that and it is a not a lie. It is a job description.

a job description??? Is that all it is??? And how about if the adoptive child knows who his [her] father really is??? Apparently both Luke and Jesus disagree with you on that point:

"43And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it ... And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions.... 48And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, 'Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. 49And he said unto them, 'How is it that ye sought me? Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?'"

She stood corrected. Jesus knew who his Father was and it wasn't Joseph.

She was a women flesh and blood after she gave birth to Jesus she fulfilled her life to her husband and gave birth to other children. It is not scriptural that a man or woman should abstain unless agreed upon for a time.

I agree with all you say, the poster I had responded to had mixed up IC with the Virgin birth. Not a Catholic , and now I am reminded why one should'nt expound on another's dogma.

Ummm, I've seen that quote from Iraeneus before, and it isn't even remotely close to confirming Catholic Marian doctrine.

All he's saying is that Mary was obedient and thus can be seen as the cause (not the source, the cause - her obedience) of salvation whereas with Eve (and Adam), they were disobedient and the cause of our fall. I hate to burst your bubble, but Protestants believe this too.

There's nothing in Iraeneus' statement that supports any current, modern, Catholic doctrine about Mary (the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, prayers to her, that she can "intercede", etc, etc, etc).

Again, I repeat my challenge (because Catholics so often appeal to the church fathers and the early church as the basis for their apostolic succession and authority, etc): show me one source, pre-4th century - prior to Constantine and Christianity being the official religion of the Empire - that can be used as a foundation for any of the aforementioned doctrines. (it's been a while since I was reading the early church fathers and looking for these sources, but I believe there was zero before you reach the about the 6th century).

You won't find it, because it's not there, and that means it isn't from Scripture, it isn't from the early church fathers or tradition, and it isn't historical. That means it is an invention of the Church, created whole cloth, pulled out of thin air. And it was created in the way I described in my prior post, up above on this thread

Well, the Pope can declare anything he wants, but only Catholics believe it is true or infallible. Protestants just kind of smile, nod, and roll our eyes.

There is nothing, as I've said before, prior to the 4th century and Christianity becoming the religion of the Empire, in the writings of any of the early church fathers that in any way promotes any current, Catholic, Marian doctrine or could really even be seen as the basis for it. Once she was declared "Theotokos", and the religion becomes the religion of the Empire, then you see all the pagan influence - the worship of goddesses - become established in the Church as they begin to latch on to Mary. Combine that with the belief that God (and Jesus) are harsh, judgmental kings - who one cannot possibly go to in prayer, themselves - and you see the need for the gentle, feminine, "mother" figure to go to God and "intercede".

Again, show me something in writing from the early church fathers, prior to the 4th century, that in any way promotes Mary as the Immaculate Conception, speaks of her Assumption, shows that she was an object of prayer or that anyone thought she should be prayed to and could "intercede", and I'll take it all back. As a matter of fact, I don't believe there's anything to even indicate that anyone thought she didn't have normal relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus, either.

Right... so where it describes one event two different ways that means it really happened twice.

Just because an event is described slightly different from one writer to another, does not mean either one is wrong or that the event happened twice. But it is hard to argue that the Bible is 100% literal when many there are many parables and a great amount of symbolism used. The Bible is 100% true, but not 100% literal.

78
posted on 04/28/2008 8:30:52 AM PDT
by Always Right
(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)

How does that disagree with me? It is BOTH a job description AND a biological relationship as WELL AS a command hierarchy. Jesus was telling Mary he had bigger fish to fry and that her concerns were overridden. That does not make Joseph not A father to him. He fed him, he clothed him, he took care of his mother. So no, Mary was not a liar. Jesus reminded her he had another more important parent whose business he had to be about. He was not calling her a liar. He was correcting her priorities.

It can be extremely metaphoric. We have to look very hard at what we thing is not literal though and give those things that are debatable the benefit of the faith that they are literal unless something clear shows there is more to it. Almost no ones tries to take every single thing 100% literal or else we would have to both hate our father and mother and also honor them while at the same time selling all our possessions.

“Well, the Pope can declare anything he wants, but only Catholics believe it is true or infallible. Protestants just kind of smile, nod, and roll our eyes.”

You are so right about the Pope and the Catholic’s belief in his infallibility in matters of faith, moral teachings and doctrine. I respect your right to smile, nod and roll your eyes.

That’s why there is a seemingly unbrigeable chasm between the teachings of the Catholic and any other church. Sadly enough it cannot be any other way — if I were to cease to believe in the Pope’s infallibility then I should also stop believing, or at least doubt, in the teachings of my Church which would then oblige me to seek membership in another church.

I definitely do not feel the need to do so and therefore remain happily stuck in my own rut.

81
posted on 04/28/2008 9:20:49 AM PDT
by 353FMG
(Don't make the mistake to think that Government is a Friend of the People)

How does that disagree with me? It is BOTH a job description AND a biological relationship as WELL AS a command hierarchy.

And just which of those describe the "Father" whom Jesus called "my Father"???

Jesus was telling Mary he had bigger fish to fry and that her concerns were overridden.

In addition to telling her that she was wrong.

That does not make Joseph not A father to him.

So then how many "fathers" did Jesus have??? His own words acknowledge that He only had one -- "my Father". He didn't say: "my heavenly Father" or "my other father" -- He said "my Father" -- that's all.

He fed him, he clothed him

Good Samaritans do that as well -- so should they expect to be called "fathers".

he took care of his mother.

So did John after his crucifixion -- so did that make John his "father" too.

So no, Mary was not a liar. Jesus reminded her he had another more important parent whose business he had to be about. He was not calling her a liar. He was correcting her priorities.

He was correcting her prefabrication along with her priorities, and doing so as kindly but straight-forwardly as was necessary -- but she still didn't get it -- nor did Joseph.

Mary was not immaculately conceived The angels in heaven are not gods, but they were created sinless and have remained so ever since. Many angels aligned with Lucifer, (Is 14:12) became sinners and were cast out of heaven. Rev 12:9 The saints in heaven are not gods, although each of them is now completely sinless (Rev. 14:5; 21:27).

The saints here are the first fruits - those who rose when Jesus died on the cross at the 9th hour. They were not previously sinless. See Matthew 27:52

The second and third arguments are related. Mary needed Jesus as her savior. His death on the Cross saved her, as it saves us, but its saving effects were applied to her (unlike to us) at the moment of her conception. (Keep in mind that the Crucifixion is an eternal event and that the appropriation of salvation through Christs death isnt impeded by time or space.)

Medieval theologians developed an analogy to explain how and why Mary needed Jesus as her savior. A man (each of us) is walking along a forest path, unaware of a large pit a few paces directly ahead of him. He falls headlong into the pit and is immersed in the mud (original sin) it contains. He cries out for help, and his rescuer (the Lord Jesus) lowers a rope down to him and hauls him back up to safety. The man says to his rescuer, "Thank you for saving me," recalling the words of the psalmist: The Lord "stooped toward me and heard my cry. He drew me out of the pit of destruction, out of the mud of the swamp; he set my feet upon a crag" (Psalm 40:2-4).

A woman (Mary), approaches the same pit, but as she began to fall into the pit her rescuer reaches out and stops her from falling in. She cries out, "Thank you for saving me" (Luke 1:47). Like this woman, Mary was no less "saved" than any other human being has been saved. She was just saved anticipatorily, before contracting original sin. Each of us is permitted to become dirtied with original sin, but she was not. God hates sin, so this was a far better way.

Sorry, as long as youre putting this up for discussion this is conjecture and hogwash which has no support from the biblical text nor from the teachings of Jesus who said no one comes to the Father but through me.

Pauls statements in Romans chapters 3 and 5 (no one is righteous; no one seeks God; no one does good; all have sinned) should not be taken in a crassly literal and universal sense--if they are, irreconcilable contradictions will arise. Consider Luke 1:6. Common sense tells us whole groups of people are exempt from Pauls statement that "all have sinned." Aborted infants cannot sin, nor can young children or severely retarded people. But Paul didnt mention such obvious exceptions. He was writing to adults in our state of life.

If certain groups are exempt from the "all have sinned" rubric, then these verses cant be used to argue against Marys Immaculate Conception, since hers would be an exceptional case too, one not needing mention given the purpose of Pauls discussion and his intended audience.

Paul or any of the writers of the Bible were not addressing children. Consider the culture of the time. Jesus said to such as these children belong the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 19:14)

Types Marys Immaculate Conception is foreshadowed in Genesis 1, where God creates the universe in an immaculate state, free from any blemish or stain of sin or imperfection. This is borne out by the repeated mention in Genesis 1 of God beholding his creations and saying they were "very good."

Who created Lucifer the devil? The study of types is valid though it cannot be used to create things that the Bible specifically speaks against.

The study of the Prodigal son is a good example as it refers to the son who went away and fell under the influence of Gentile culture and then one day realized who he was (remembering his roots in Israel) and began the journey home to his fathers house. You can assemble so many verses from the bible to make them say something they do not say that it is ridiculous as this whole maryology thing. Im sorry  it is just not supported by good theology.

The whole of the Bible - Old and New Testament is about Israel, the 12 sons of Jacob. They are The House of Judah and the House of Joseph. Together they make the House of Israel. The old testament is about their beginnings, their journeys, their wars and struggles and their separation. Ephraim scattered to the North and West and Judah taken captive to Babylon. (no, the 10 tribes never went anywhere near Babylon) The bible describes the great day coming when the two houses or two sticks (twelve tribes) will again come from the four corners of the earth and unite as brothers, one stick in the hand of the Son of Man. Ez 37:15 -28.

I'm not a Catholic, but I think you are confusing what Immaculate Conception means with the Virgin birth of Jesus. You are correct. I was confusing the two. Now that I know that the two are separate things, I realize that I know even less about the whole Mary thing than I thought.

That's alright, it took me three posts to get where I am with that discussion, and I already knew they were different things. With that in mind, would you reconsider this statement of yours:

"It seems to me, that in the desperate rush to condemn the Catholic Church, many Protestants zoom in on the whole Mary thing and exaggerate and distort the teachings in order to confirm the entire basis for Protestantism, which is that the Catholic Church is false. For that reason, Protestants seem to need to believe in the most ridiculous exaggerations of Catholic teaching."

I think it is helpful if one can admit making a mistake with a broad over-generalization, it keeps the water of discussion/argument pure.

Actually, that part of my statement is not just based on the whole Mary controversy. It has been my personal experience that many Protestant types, rather than simply considering it to be another variation of Christianity, compulsively bash Catholicism and usually do so with a distorted version of some teaching or another (since my knowledge of Catholic doctrine is limited at best, I usually ask some knowledgeable Catholic after the fact). My most recent experience was with a couple of Seventh Day Adventists, who are of the opinion that the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon, etc., etc. To support that view they cited "Catholic" beliefs which later turned out to be incorrect interpretations of Catholic doctrine, at least according to my Catholic source.

That many Protestants bash Catholicism is indisputable. You can see that right here on FR. That much of that bashing is based on perceived Catholic beliefs which may not be correct interpretations of Catholic doctrine is also evident, even from the FR threads. I have also personally witnessed the compulsive need of some Protestant groups to bash Catholicism. So, I stick with my assertion that many Protestants bash Catholicism based on distorted or exaggerated interpretations of Catholic belief.

87
posted on 04/28/2008 12:23:12 PM PDT
by fr_freak
(So foul a sky clears not without a storm.)

Did you play with matches in an old barn half filled with hay and firecrackers as a kid?

Sometimes you seem like the sibling who’s an artist at getting all his siblings in trouble and at each other’s throats and then when Dad shows up on the scene . . . he’s the picture of solicitous nurturing and caring with bandaids & splints for all.

Again, I repeat my challenge (because Catholics so often appeal to the church fathers and the early church as the basis for their apostolic succession and authority, etc): show me one source, pre-4th century - prior to Constantine and Christianity being the official religion of the Empire - that can be used as a foundation for any of the aforementioned doctrines.

Scripture is the ultimate foundation for all of those things, but let's see ... prayer to Mary can be proven to exist around AD 200, the first known (unambiguous) dissent to the Perpetual Virginity happened at the end of the 4th Century (and was slapped down as heretical by both the Pope of Rome and St. Jerome), St. Augustine exempts Mary from his discussion of original sin just after AD 400, around the same time St. Ephrem's Nisibene Hymns describe Mary as sinless, etc.

The Assumption of Mary was celebrated liturgically in Palestine by about AD 500, but the belief itself is older.

The idea that Catholic/Orthodox Marian belief sprung into existence in the Middle Ages is definitely false.

“Sons of men” in the bible is written in a different language. In most cases, what is meant is children, or at least offspring, and in that sense could refer to both genders. In Psalm 33, the construction is probably used to emphasize that they are merely sons of men, as opposed to a son of God. But I wouldn’t defend that point too vigorously.
In St. Leo’s case, he is not meaning to reference offspring (and Latin did have better gender-neutral terms for offspring), but appears to use “sons of men” because it is simply more gender-specific than simply than “men.”

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.